Reversed shoulder prostheses are increasingly being used for the treatment of glenohumeral arthropathy associated with a deficient rotator cuff. These non-anatomical implants attempt to balance the joint forces by means of a semi-constrained articular surface and a medialised centre of rotation. A finite element model was used to compare a reversed prosthesis with an anatomical implant. Active abduction was simulated from 0° to 150° of elevation. With the anatomical prosthesis, the joint force almost reached the equivalence of body weight. The joint force was half this for the reversed prosthesis. The direction of force was much more vertically aligned for the reverse prosthesis, in the first 90° of abduction. With the reversed prosthesis, abduction was possible without rotator cuff muscles and required 20% less deltoid force to achieve it.

This force analysis confirms the potential mechanical advantage of reversed prostheses when rotator cuff muscles are deficient.

The results of proximal humeral replacement following trauma are substantially worse than for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. The stable reattachment of the lesser and greater tuberosity fragments to the rotator cuff and the restoration of shoulder biomechanics are difficult. In 1992 we developed a prosthesis designed to improve fixation of the tuberosity fragments in comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus. The implant enables fixation of the fragments to the shaft of the prosthesis and the diaphyseal fragment using screws, washers and a special toothed plate. Between 1992 and 2003 we used this technique in 50 of 76 patients referred to our institution for shoulder reconstruction after trauma. In the remaining 26, reconstruction with a prosthesis and nonabsorbable sutures was performed, as the tuberosity fragments were too small and too severely damaged to allow the use of screws and the toothed plate.

The Constant score two years post-operatively was a mean of 12 points better in the acute trauma group and 11 points better in the late post-traumatic group than in the classical suture group.

We recommend this technique in patients where the tuberosity fragments are large enough to allow fixation with screws, washers and a toothed plate.

There is little information about the management of peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus after total shoulder replacement (TSR). This is a retrospective review of 22 patients who underwent a revision of their original shoulder replacement for peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus with bone loss and/or loose components. There were 20 women and two men with a mean age of 75 years (61 to 90) and a mean follow-up 42 months (12 to 91): 16 of these had undergone a previous revision TSR. Of the 22 patients, 12 were treated with a long-stemmed humeral component that bypassed the fracture. All their fractures united after a mean of 27 weeks (13 to 94). Eight patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus with endoprosthetic replacement to the level of the fracture. Two patients were managed with a clam-shell prosthesis that retained the original components. The mean Oxford shoulder score (OSS) of the original TSRs before peri-prosthetic fracture was 33 (14 to 48). The mean OSS after revision for fracture was 25 (9 to 31). Kaplan-Meier survival using re-intervention for any reason as the endpoint was 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68 to 98) and 60% (95% CI 30 to 80) at one and five years, respectively.

There were two revisions for dislocation of the humeral head, one open reduction for modular humeral component dissociation, one internal fixation for nonunion, one trimming of a prominent screw and one re-cementation for aseptic loosening complicated by infection, ultimately requiring excision arthroplasty. Two patients sustained nerve palsies.

Revision TSR after a peri-prosthetic humeral fracture associated with bone loss and/or loose components is a salvage procedure that can provide a stable platform for elbow and hand function. Good rates of union can be achieved using a stem that bypasses the fracture. There is a high rate of complications and function is not as good as with the original replacement.

We retrospectively reviewed 11 consecutive patients with an infected reverse shoulder prosthesis. Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically, and standard laboratory tests were carried out. Peroperative samples showed Propionbacterium acnes in seven, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in five, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in one and Escherichia coli in one. Two multibacterial and nine monobacterial infections were seen. Post-operatively, patients were treated with intravenous cefazolin for at least three days and in all antibiotic therapy was given for at least three months. Severe pain (3 of 11) or severe limitation of function (3 of 11) are not necessarily seen. A fistula was present in eight, but function was not affected. All but one patient were considered free of infection after one-stage revision at a median follow-up of 24 months, and without antibiotic treatment for a minimum of six months. One patient had a persistent infection despite a second staged revision, but is now free of infection with a spacer. Complications included posterior dislocation in one, haematoma in one and a clavicular fracture in one. At the most recent follow-up the median post-operative Constant-Murley score was 55, 6% adjusted for age, gender and dominance.

A one-stage revision arthroplasty reduces the cost and duration of treatment. It is reliable in eradicating infection and good functional outcomes can be achieved.

We reviewed the outcome of 28 patients who had been treated using the Aequalis fracture prosthesis for an acute fracture of the proximal humerus at a mean follow-up of 39.3 months (24 to 63). The mean age of the patients at the time of the fracture was 66.3 years (38 to 80). The mean Constant score was 68.2 (37 to 84) for the operated shoulder, which represented 89.5% of the mean score for the uninjured side (p < 0.001). The quality of the reconstruction as shown on the immediate post-operative radiographs was categorised into three types, anatomical, acceptable, and unacceptable, depending on the position of the tuberosities relative to the prosthetic head and the humeral shaft. Anatomical reconstruction was associated with a higher mean Constant score as well as higher mean values of anterior forward elevation, abduction and external rotation than the other types, but the differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.231).

A total of 18 patients had active anterior elevation ≥150°. Their mean active abduction and external rotation were 163.6° and 31.3°, respectively. In seven of the 28 patients, the mean active anterior elevation, abduction and external rotation were 130.7°, 129.2° and 22.8°, respectively. In all, 12 patients were very satisfied with the results, 12 were satisfied, two were dissatisfied and two were disappointed; 26 reported no or only mild pain while only two had moderate pain. In five patients proximal migration of the humeral head was shown on the anteroposterior radiographs of the shoulder. No evidence of loosening was found in any prosthesis.

Antegrade intramedullary nailing of fractures of the shaft of the humerus is reported to cause impairment of the shoulder joint. We have reviewed 33 patients with such fractures to assess how many had injuries to the ipsilateral shoulder. All had an MR scan of the shoulder within 11 days of injury. The unaffected shoulder was also scanned as a control. There was evidence of abnormality in 21 of the shoulders (63.6%) on the injured side; ten had bursitis of the subacromial space, five evidence of a partial tear of the rotator cuff, one a complete rupture of the supraspinatus tendon, four inflammatory changes in the acromioclavicular joint and one a fracture of the coracoid process. These injuries may contribute to pain and dysfunction of the shoulder following treatment, and their presence indicates that antegrade nailing is only partly, if at all, responsible for these symptoms.

Mechanical loosening which begins with early-onset migration of the prosthesis is the major reason for failure of the Souter-Strathclyde elbow replacement. In a prospective study of 18 Souter-Strathclyde replacements we evaluated the patterns of migration using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. We had previously reported the short-term results after a follow-up of two years which we have now extended to a mean follow-up of 8.2 years (1 to 11.3). Migration was assessed along the co-ordinal axes and overall micromovement was expressed as the maximum total point movement. The alignment of the prosthesis and the presence of radiolucent lines were examined on conventional standardised radiographs.

All the humeral components showed increased and variable patterns of migration at the extended follow-up and four humeral components were revised. The maximum total point movement at two years in the revised prostheses was 1.8 mm (sd 1.0) and in the non-revised 0.7 mm (sd 0.5, p = 0.01). Most humeral components migrated into external rotation resulting in an anterior and varus tilt. The ulnar components remained stable.